IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ANDREW NAMIKI ROBERTS , Plaintiff s - Appellants , v. AL CUMMINGS, in his Official Capacity as the S t ate Sheriff Division Admin istrator; C LARE E. CONNORS, in her O fficial Capacity as the Attorney G eneral of the State of Hawaii , Defendant s - Appellees , and SUSAN BALLARD, in her Official Capacity as the Chief of Police of Honol ulu County 1 , Defendant. No 21 - 1 5562 PLAINTIFF - APPELL ANT ’ S MOTION FOR SUMMARY DISPO SITION COMES NOW, Plaintiff - Appellant Andrew Namiki Roberts, and files t his, his Motion for Summary Disposition pursuant to Circuit Rule 3 - 6, and would show the Court the following : BACKGROUND 1. Mr. Ro bert ’ s case was filed on April 2, 2018. In his Compla int for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief, Mr. Robe rts alleged , inter ali a , that the “ State of Hawaii outlaws the private possession by Plaintiff of a Taser and stun gun within the state. ” See ¶ 50, 1 Defendant Ballard was dismiss ed in the district court on July 11, 2018. See Docket No. 28. Case: 21-15562, 03/31/2021, ID: 12059196, DktEntry: 2-1, Page 1 of 9 (1 of 27) 2 Docket No. 1. And that this prohibition on a n “ arm in common use ” violates his Second Amendment rights Id . at ¶ 76. 2. On December 17, 201 8, an agreement was reached with Defendants to stay th e matter pending legislation. See Exhibit “ A ” , Docket No. 41. That stay was lifted on April 29, 2019 after the Hawaii legislature failed to act . Docket No. 46. For purposes of this Motion, this agree d upon stay is not counted in the total number of involuntar ily stayed days 3. O n August 2, 201 9, Mr. Roberts filed his Motion for Summa ry Judgment (Docket No s . 51 , 52) and Defendants filed their Cross Motion for Summary Ju dgment on September 4, 2019 (Docket No s. 54, 55) . The matter was fully briefed and set for hearing . It was heard by the district court on Nove mber 26, 201 9. 4. After the hearing, the district court stayed the proceedings pending a decision by the United States Supreme Court in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. City of New York , No. 18 - 280 See Exhibit “ B ” 5. New York Rifle was subsequ ently mooted by the United S t ates Supreme Court on April 27, 2020 See New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. City of New York , 590 U.S. ____ (2 020). Immediately after that , Mr. Roberts moved the district court to lift the first court - imposed stay. 6. On June 17, 2020, the Court entered an Order continuing the stay : Pursuant to the issues raised before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the District Court elects to continue to STAY the proceedings in this case Case: 21-15562, 03/31/2021, ID: 12059196, DktEntry: 2-1, Page 2 of 9 (2 of 27) 3 pending the en banc decision by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in Young v. State of Hawaii , No. 12 - 17808. I n a ddition, the State of Hawaii represents that the Motions may become moot as “[t]here is now pending in the Hawaii State Legislature SB2292 which would repeal the total ban on electric guns and replace it with a regulatory scheme.” (Supplement at p. 3, ECF No. 77). The Court will instruct the Parties how to proceed following the en banc decision by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in Young See Docket No. 79, Exhibit “ C ” 7. On July 27, 2020, Mr. Roberts filed hi s Motion to Lift Stay after the legislature again f ailed to act : Mr. Roberts’ rights have been and are continuing to be infringed. This matter has been stayed three times. The first, Mr. Roberts agreed to the stay to allow the legislature to act. The second stay was issued immediately after oral argument pending N YSRPA v. NYC, 140 S.Ct. 1525 (2020) in the Supreme Court which was subsequently mooted. The third stay was put in place pending Young, supra Because the Hawaii legislature will not correct this issue, it is incumbent upon the Court to issue its rulin g. See Docket No. 80, Exhibit “ D ” Further , the De fendants s tated in the conferen ce of counsel pursuant to Local Rule 7.8 , and ref lected in D ocket No. 80 , that they would not oppose the relief requested in the motion. 8. Despite the Motion to Lift Stay and the Defendants not opposing the relief re quested, t he district court still denied Plaintiff ’ s Motion to Lift Stay. See Docket Nos. 81 & 82. 9. Then , this Court issued its en ban c ruling in Young v. Hawaii , No. 12 - 17808, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 8571 (9th Cir. Mar. 24, 2021) Case: 21-15562, 03/31/2021, ID: 12059196, DktEntry: 2-1, Page 3 of 9 (3 of 27) 4 10. Immediately, Mr. Roberts filed, again, a Motion to Lift th e Stay and re - urge his moti on for summary judgment See Docket No. 84 , attached as Exhibit “ E ” 11. The district court recogni zed that Young was deci ded by the en banc Court, but now decided that court will not resume until Young is “ concluded ” b ecause one of Mr. Robert s ’ attorney (also an attorney for Mr. Young) said he would seek review at the Supreme Court in Young in a news art icle contained in the Honolulu Star - Adver tiser See D o cket No. 85, attached as E xhibit “ F ” ARGUMENT The district court ’ s stay order should be summarily rev ersed and this cause remanded for f urther procee dings wit hout delay Mr. Robe rts has been left out of court too long and his constitutional rights are being violated. T h e Ninth Circuit reviews “ a district court's stay order for abuse of discretion, but this standard is ‘ somewhat less deferential ’ than the abuse of discretion standard used in other contexts. ” Lockyer v. Mirant Corp ., 398 F.3d 1098, 1105 (9th Cir. 2005) (citation omitted). “ Ordinarily, a stay order is n ot an appealable final decision. ” Davis v. Walker , 745 F.3d 1303, 1308 (9th Cir. 2014) But, “ because the already lengthy and indefinite stay puts [the plaintiff] ‘ effectively out of court, ’ the stay order on these facts ‘ amounts to a dismissal of the suit ’ a nd is revi ewable as a final decision under § 1291. ” Id . at 1308. “ A ‘ practical ’ construction requires that when a plaintiff's action is effectively dead, th e order which killed it must be viewed as final. Effective death should Case: 21-15562, 03/31/2021, ID: 12059196, DktEntry: 2-1, Page 4 of 9 (4 of 27) 5 be understood to comprehend any extended state of suspended animation. ” Hines v. D'Artois , 531 F.2d 726, 730 (5th Cir. 1976) Th is is the pre cise issue here and because of this, the Court has jurisdiction under §1291 M r. Roberts has had his case in voluntarily stayed by the district court for over 490 days. And there is no end in sight because the district court has stayed Rober ts ’ matter pending the outcome of a non - related case which may or may not b e appealed to the Supreme Court and then which may or may not be granted by the Supreme Court (which has extended deadlines to appeal and a petitioner now has up to 150 days to file a petition ). 2 This does not take into account th e briefing , argument and waiting for the opinion that would issue from the Sup reme Court if it did grant a potential petition in Young and does not taken into account if the Supreme Court remand s Young for further pro ceedings at s ome such time in the future. “ [L] engthy and indefinite stays place a plaintiff effectively out of court. Such an indefinite delay amounts to a refusal to proceed to a disposition on the mer its. ” Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Ala. v. Unity Outpatient Surgery Ctr., Inc ., 490 F.3d 718, 724 (9th Cir. 2007) The district court ’ s stay orders and refusal to lift the stay even when the conditions o f its stay orders have been satisfied have placed Mr. Roberts out of court. The district court continues to stay the matter pending some other condition prec edent since Nove mber 26, 2019. First it was the Supreme Court ’ s reso lution in New York 2 https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/031920zr_d1o3.pdf (las t accessed 3/3 0/21). Case: 21-15562, 03/31/2021, ID: 12059196, DktEntry: 2-1, Page 5 of 9 (5 of 27) 6 Rifle Then it was the Ninth Circu it ’ s en banc resolution in Young and that maybe the legislature would act a second time Now it is the actual conclusion of Young which there is no way to know how long that will take. See Landis v. N. Am. Co ., 299 U.S. 248, 257, 57 S. Ct. 163, 167 (1936) ( “ When once those limits have been reached, the fetters should fall off ... [ a ] n order which is to continue by its terms for an immoderate stretch of time is not to be upheld as moderate because conceivably the court that made it may be persuaded at a later time to undo what it has done ”) Th is Circuit has previously stated that “ [ w] e respect the trial court ’ s inherent power ‘ to control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel and for litigants ’ and we give deference to the district court ’ s judgment that the stay will avoid h ardship and inequity, but we ‘ cannot abdicate our [role] . . . to prevent the ossification of rights which attends inordinate delay. ’ ’ ) (citations and footnote omitted, alteration in original). ” Hoeun Yong v. INS , 208 F.3d 1116, 1119 (9th Cir. 2000) ( quoting Itel Corp. v. M/S Victoria U (Ex Pishtaz Iran) , 710 F.2d 199, 202 - 03 (5th Cir. 1983) ). Hoe un , while a habe as ca se, is similar i n the analysis because that case was stayed pending a resolution of a d ifferent case to the Supreme Court. The stay “ term is indefinite ... because the stay terminates upon the ‘ resolution of the [Ma] appeal, ’ if the S upreme Court should grant certiorari to review this court ’ s decision in Ma, the stay could remain in effect for a lengthy period of time, perhaps for years if our decision in Ma is reversed and the case is remanded for further proceedings. ” Hoeun Yong v. I NS , Case: 21-15562, 03/31/2021, ID: 12059196, DktEntry: 2-1, Page 6 of 9 (6 of 27) 7 208 F.3d 1116, 1119 (9th Cir. 2000) . And this is no different than staying Mr. Roberts ’ ca se pending a p otential Supreme Court appeal in Y o ung 3 And wh at then happens if Young is reman ded for further proceedings after the Supreme Court ’ s ruling? Given the district court ’ s order, since Young ’ s case would not be “ con cluded ” , it is an indefinite stay I t is because of this continu ous suspended animation , and changing what will end the stay , that Mr. Roberts has been left out of court Mr. Roberts deserves to have his case adjudicated. T he district court has abused its discretion , has committed clear error , and should be summar ily reversed. C ONCLUSION The Court should reverse the district court ’ s latest stay order and remand for further proceedings Res pectfully submitted, this the 3 1 st of March, 2021. /s/ Stephen D. Stamboulieh Stephen D. Stamboulieh Stamboulieh Law, PLLC P.O. Box 428 Olive Branch, MS 38654 (601) 852 - 3440 stephen@sdslaw.us MS Bar No. 102784 Alan Alexander Beck Law Office of Alan Beck 2692 Harcourt Drive San Diego, CA 92123 (619) 905 - 9105 Hawaii Bar No. 9145 Ala n.alexander.beck@gmail.com 3 See also fn. 2 of Hoe un : “ ... once a federal circuit court issues a decision, the district courts within that circuit are bound to follow it and have no authority to await a ruling by the Supreme Court before applying the circuit court's decision as binding authority ... ” Hoeun Yong v. INS, 208 F.3d 1116, 1119 n.2 (9th Cir. 2000) Case: 21-15562, 03/31/2021, ID: 12059196, DktEntry: 2-1, Page 7 of 9 (7 of 27) 8 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE I hereby certify that the foregoing complies with the type - volume , typeface, and type - style requirements of Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 27 because it contains 1,6 69 words and was prepared using Microsoft Word 365 in Garamond 14 - point font , a proportionally spaced typeface. /s/ Stephen D. Stamboulieh Stephen D. Stamboulieh Case: 21-15562, 03/31/2021, ID: 12059196, DktEntry: 2-1, Page 8 of 9 (8 of 27) 9 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on March 3 1 , 2021 , I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court for the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit by using the appellate CM/ECF system. I also hereby certify that the p articipants i n the case are registered CM/ECF users , and service will be accomplished by the appellate CM/ECF system /s/ Stephen D. Stamboulieh Stephen D. Stamboulieh Case: 21-15562, 03/31/2021, ID: 12059196, DktEntry: 2-1, Page 9 of 9 (9 of 27) 753239_1 RUSSELL A. SUZUKI 2084 Attorney General of Hawaii CARON M. INAGAKI 3835 JOHN M. CREGOR, JR. 3521 Deputy Attorneys General Department of the Attorney General, State of Hawaii 425 Queen Street Honolulu, Hawaii 96813 Telephone: (808) 586-1494 Email: John.M.Cregor@hawaii.gov Attorneys for Defendants RUSSELL A. SUZUKI, Attorney General of Hawaii, and LT. ALBERT CUMMINGS III, State Sheriff (In Their Official Capacities) IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII ANDREW NAMIKI ROBERTS, Plaintiff, vs. SUSAN BALLARD, in her Official Capacity as the Chief of Police of Honolulu County, and RUSSELL SUZUKI, in his capacity as the Attorney General of the State of Hawaii, and AL CUMMINGS, in his Official Capacity as the State Sheriff Division Administrator, Defendants. CIVIL NO. CV18-00125 HG-KSC STIPULATION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS and ORDER TRIAL: July 23, 2019 Case 1:18-cv-00125-HG-RT Document 41 Filed 12/17/18 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 286 Case: 21-15562, 03/31/2021, ID: 12059196, DktEntry: 2-2, Page 1 of 3 (10 of 27) __________________________________________________________________ Roberts v. Ballard, et al. ; Civil No. 18-00125 HG-KSC; Stipulation to Stay Proceedings and Order 753239_1 2 STIPULATION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS and ORDER It is hereby stipulated, by and between the parties hereto, through counsel and pursuant to the court’s inherent authority to control proceedings before it, that all proceedings in this case and all pretrial deadlines are stayed and tolled pending adjournment sine die of the 2019 Hawaii State Legislature. If the 2019 Hawaii State Legislature has passed legislation relating to electric guns, then the period of this stay shall be further extended by that period of time provided by law for the governor to act on passed legislation. This stay shall remain in effect until further order of this court, which order may be issued sua sponte , by stipulation, or after consideration of a motion by any party and any opposition thereto. DATED: Honolulu, Hawaii, December 14, 2018. /s/ Alan Alexander Beck ALAN ALEXANDER BECK, ESQ. STEPHEN D. STAMBOULIEH, ESQ. Attorneys for Plaintiff ANDREW NAMIKI ROBERTS Case 1:18-cv-00125-HG-RT Document 41 Filed 12/17/18 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 287 Case: 21-15562, 03/31/2021, ID: 12059196, DktEntry: 2-2, Page 2 of 3 (11 of 27) __________________________________________________________________ Roberts v. Ballard, et al. ; Civil No. 18-00125 HG-KSC; Stipulation to Stay Proceedings and Order 753239_1 3 /s/ John M. Cregor JOHN M. CREGOR, JR. Deputy Attorney General Attorney for Defendants RUSSELL A. SUZUKI and AL CUMMINGS, In Their Official Capacities APPROVED AND SO ORDERED: _____________________________ Kevin S.C. Chang United States Magistrate Judge Case 1:18-cv-00125-HG-RT Document 41 Filed 12/17/18 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 288 Case: 21-15562, 03/31/2021, ID: 12059196, DktEntry: 2-2, Page 3 of 3 (12 of 27) MINUTES CASE NUMBER: CV 18-00125 HG-RT CASE NAME: Andrew Namiki Roberts vs. Russell Suzuki, in his official capacity as the Attorney General of the State of Hawaii; Al Cummings, in his official capacity as the State Sheriff Division Administrator ATTYS FOR PLA: Alan A. Beck, Esquire Stephen D. Stamboulieh, Esquire ATTY FOR DEFT: John M. Cregor, Jr., Esquire AMICUS CURIAE: Pamela W. Bunn, Esquire William James Taylor, Jr., Esquire, participated by telephone JUDGE: Helen Gillmor REPORTER: Debi Read DATE: 11/26/2019 TIME: 10:30am-11:25am COURT ACTION: EP: PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF No. 51); DEFENDANTS RUSSELL A. SUZUKI AND AL CUMMINGS' CROSS-CLAIM FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF No. 54); and MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE BRIEF OF EVERYTOWN FOR GUN SAFETY SUPPORT FUND AS AMICUS CURIAE (ECF No. 62) Discussion held. I. Amicus Curiae Amicus Curiae Everytown For Gun Safety Support Fund filed a pleading entitled, “CONSENT MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE BRIEF OF EVERYTOWN FOR GUN SAFETY SUPPORT FUND AS AMICUS CURIAE.” (ECF No. 62). 1 Case 1:18-cv-00125-HG-RT Document 71 Filed 11/26/19 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 876 Case: 21-15562, 03/31/2021, ID: 12059196, DktEntry: 2-3, Page 1 of 3 (13 of 27) Everytown For Gun Safety Support Fund attached a copy of their Proposed Brief to the Motion. (ECF NO. 62-1). Plaintiff Andrew Namiki Roberts does not oppose the Motion For Leave. Defendants Russell Suzuki, in his Official Capacity as the Attorney General of the State of Hawaii, and Al Cummings, in his Official Capacity as the State Sheriff Division Administrator do not oppose the Motion For Leave. CONSENT MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE BRIEF OF EVERYTOWN FOR GUN SAFETY SUPPORT FUND AS AMICUS CURIAE (ECF No. 62) is GRANTED The Brief (ECF No. 62-1) attached to the Motion is deemed filed and is part of the record. II. Proceedings Before This Court Plaintiff filed a Complaint claiming that Hawaii Revised Statutes § 134-1 violates the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. Haw. Rev. Stat. § 134-1 limits the sale of electric guns in the State of Hawaii. Each Party has filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. (ECF Nos. 51, 54). The Parties’ briefing on their Motions for Summary Judgment has raised the question as to what level of scrutiny applies to a challenge to a statute pursuant to the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. (Pla.’s Motion at pp. 10-11, ECF No. 51-1; Def.’s Motion at p. 11, ECF No. 54-1). Plaintiff argues both that the Hawaii state law is categorically unconstitutional because it prohibits a class of arms and that strict scrutiny should apply. (Pla.’s Motion at p. 15, ECF No. 51-1). Defendant argues that intermediate scrutiny should apply. (Def.’s Motion at p. 11, ECF No. 54-1). The amicus brief also argues that intermediate scrutiny should apply. (Amicus Brief at p. 12-14, ECF No. 62-1). 2 Case 1:18-cv-00125-HG-RT Document 71 Filed 11/26/19 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 877 Case: 21-15562, 03/31/2021, ID: 12059196, DktEntry: 2-3, Page 2 of 3 (14 of 27) III. Second Amendment Case Pending Before The United States Supreme Court The United States Supreme Court has granted certiorari in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. City of New York, 18-280. It is set to hear oral arguments in the case on Monday, December 2, 2019. In the briefing before the Supreme Court, the Parties have raised questions as to the level of scrutiny to apply in cases challenging a statute on grounds that it violates the Second Amendment. Petitioner argues that the Supreme Court should apply “a tripartite binary test with a sliding scale and a reasonable fit” to find that strict scrutiny applies to Second Amendment challenges. (Petitioner’s Brief at pp. 38-40, citing Duncan v. Becerra, 265 F.Supp.3d 1106, 1117 (S.D. Cal 2017), aff’d 742 F.App’x 218 (9th Cir. 2018)). Respondent argues that the Second Circuit Court of Appeals properly applied “means-ends scrutiny” in the case and argues that intermediate scrutiny applies to Second Amendment challenges. (Respondent’s Brief at pp. 36-37, citing District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 628-29 (2008)). IV. Stay Proceedings Pending The Supreme Court Decision Pursuant to the issues raised before the United States Supreme Court, the District Court elects to STAY the proceedings in this case pending the decision by the United States Supreme Court in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. City of New York, 18-280. Within 45 days of the decision by the United States Supreme Court, the Parties may file supplemental briefing concerning the appropriate level of scrutiny to apply to the Plaintiff’s challenge to Hawaii Revised Statutes § 134-1. Submitted by: Shelli Mizukami, Courtroom Manager 3 Case 1:18-cv-00125-HG-RT Document 71 Filed 11/26/19 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 878 Case: 21-15562, 03/31/2021, ID: 12059196, DktEntry: 2-3, Page 3 of 3 (15 of 27) MINUTE ORDER CASE NUMBER: CV 18-00125 HG-RT CASE NAME: Andrew Namiki Roberts vs. Russell Suzuki, in his official capacity as the Attorney General of the State of Hawaii; Al Cummings, in his official capacity as the State Sheriff Division Administrator ATTYS FOR PLA: Alan A. Beck, Esquire Stephen D. Stamboulieh, Esquire ATTY FOR DEFT: John M. Cregor, Jr., Esquire AMICUS CURIAE EVERYTOWN FOR GUN SAFETY SUPPORT FUND: Pamela W. Bunn, Esquire William James Taylor, Jr., Esquire JUDGE: Helen Gillmor DATE: June 17, 2020 Plaintiff filed a Complaint claiming that Hawaii Revised Statutes § 134-1 violates the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. Haw. Rev. Stat. § 134-1 limits the sale of electric guns in the State of Hawaii. Each Party has filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. (ECF Nos. 51, 54). The Parties’ briefing on their Motions for Summary Judgment has raised the question as to what level of scrutiny applies to a challenge to a statute pursuant to the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. (Pla.’s Motion at pp. 10-11, ECF No. 51-1; Def.’s Motion at p. 11, ECF No. 54-1). The question as to what level of scrutiny applies to a challenge to a Hawaii state statute pursuant to the Second Amendment is pending a decision, en banc, before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has elected to hear, en 1 Case 1:18-cv-00125-HG-RT Document 79 Filed 06/17/20 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 1028 Case: 21-15562, 03/31/2021, ID: 12059196, DktEntry: 2-4, Page 1 of 2 (16 of 27) banc, arguments in Young v. State of Hawaii, No. 12-17808, 915 F.3d 681 (9th Cir. 2019), during the week of September 21, 2020. Pursuant to the issues raised before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the District Court elects to continue to STAY the proceedings in this case pending the en banc decision by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in Young v. State of Hawaii, No. 12-17808. In addition, the State of Hawaii represents that the Motions may become moot as “[t]here is now pending in the Hawaii State Legislature SB2292 which would repeal the total ban on electric guns and replace it with a regulatory scheme.” (Supplement at p. 3, ECF No. 77). The Court will instruct the Parties how to proceed following the en banc decision by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in Young. Submitted by: Ilene Lee, Courtroom Manager 2 Case 1:18-cv-00125-HG-RT Document 79 Filed 06/17/20 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 1029 Case: 21-15562, 03/31/2021, ID: 12059196, DktEntry: 2-4, Page 2 of 2 (17 of 27) 1 Alan Alexander Beck Law Office of Alan Beck 2692 Harcourt Drive San Diego, CA 92123 (619) 905 - 9105 Hawaii Bar No. 9145 Alan.alexander.beck@gmail.com Stephen D. Stamboulieh Stamboulieh Law, PLLC P.O. Box 4008 Madison, MS 39130 (601) 852 - 3440 stephen@sdslaw.us MS Bar No. 102784 *Admitted Pro Hac Vice Attorneys for Plaintiff ANDREW NAMIKI ROBERTS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII ANDREW NAMIKI ROBERTS ) Civil Action No. 1:18 - cv - 00125 - HG - RT ) Plaintiff, ) MOTION TO LIFT STAY ; ) MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT; and v. ) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ) RUSSELL SUZUKI, in hi s Official ) Capacity as the Attorney General ) of the State of Hawaii and AL ) CUMMINGS in his Official Capacity ) as the State Sheriff Division ) Administrator ) JUDGE: Hon. Helen Gillmor ) Defendants. ) TRIAL: Vacated ___ ____________________________) HEARING: November 26 , 2019 Case 1:18-cv-00125-HG-RT Document 80 Filed 07/20/20 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 1030 Case: 21-15562, 03/31/2021, ID: 12059196, DktEntry: 2-5, Page 1 of 3 (18 of 27) 2 PL AINTIFF’S MOTION TO LIFT STAY This Court stayed this matter on June 17, 2020 [ECF # 79] pending the en banc decision of Young v. State of Hawaii , No. 12 - 17808, 915 F.3d 681 (9th Cir. 2019) and due to the representation made by Defendant’s counsel that “ [t]here is now pending in the Hawaii State Legislature SB2292 1 which would repeal the total ban on electric guns and replace it with a regulatory scheme. ” June 17, 2020 Order. The legislature adjourned sine die 2 The legislature has had two attempts now to address the issue in this matter and has failed both times. Mr. Roberts’ rights have been and are continuing to be infringed. This matter has been stayed three times. The first, Mr. Roberts agreed to the s tay to allow the legislature to act. The second stay was issued immediately after oral argument pending NYSRPA v. NYC , 140 S.Ct. 1525 (2020) in the Supreme Court which was subsequently mooted. The third stay was put in place pending Young , supra Because the Hawaii legisla ture will not correct this issue, it is incumbent upon the Court to issue its ruling. 1 This is the incorrect bill number. The referenced bill deals with tax credits. The bill at issue was HB 2292: https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/measure_ indiv.aspx?billtype=HB&billnumber=22 92&year=2020 2 See https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/legcal.aspx Case 1:18-cv-00125-HG-RT Document 80 Filed 07/20/20 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 1031 Case: 21-15562, 03/31/2021, ID: 12059196, DktEntry: 2-5, Page 2 of 3 (19 of 27) 3 This motion is made following the conference of counsel pursuant to LR7.8 which took place on July 13, 2020. Counsel for Defendants stated that they would not oppose th e relief requested in this motion. Wherefore, premises considered, for reasons set forth here and in Plaintiff’s Memorandum in Support, Plaintiff requests that the stay be lifted and the Court to rule on Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF # 51]. Dated: Canton , Mississippi, July 20 , 2020 Respectfully submitted, /s/ Alan Beck Alan Alexander Beck /s/ Stephen D. Stamboulieh Stephen D. Stamboulieh Stamboulieh Law, PLLC *Admitted Pro Hac Vice Case 1:18-cv-00125-HG-RT Document 80 Filed 07/20/20 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 1032 Case: 21-15562, 03/31/2021, ID: 12059196, DktEntry: 2-5, Page 3 of 3 (20 of 27)